The footpath outside the school is ridiculously narrow, flanked on one side by
the school fence and on the other by around a dozen parking bays.

Under pressure from Chris the council had hatched a plan to take a strip of land
from the school but the Department of Education said the obvious solution was
for Bexley council to use its own land for its own footpath and do something about the
parking bays. Bexley council refused, preferring to encourage children to be
driven to school and retain its hazardous footpath. However one parking space
was removed to improve visibility for the school crossing patrol.

Clearly Chris’s patience with a council that puts children at risk was running out.Cabinet
member Don Massey immediately adopted an aggressive tone. His summary of the
situation is no different to mine except that he failed to mention why the
single parking bay was removed, thereby implying it was of more relevance to the
footpath than it is. He was particularly aggrieved about the amount of officer time
expended as a result of Mr. Attard’s campaign for child safety.

Councillor Massey assured fellow members that the school headmistress was happy with
the present situation which is a little odd because it was the school that organised the 439
signature petition and the footpath situation is the same now as it ever was. Councillor Massey
rammed home the point by saying there was a good highway safety record at the school.

Mr. Attard was allowed to respond and he asked why the council didn’t remove the
parking bays as it was the simple solution. Councillor Massey said it was a matter of
value for money and weighing risks and the council was still not in receipt of the petition
and claimed the school had never seen it either. His main excuse for inaction was that Mr. Attard’s
“perception of risk is very different to everyone else’s”, but naturally he respected him for it.

In my files is a more than three year old letter from the school to councillor Peter Craske,
the cabinet member for Public Realm before the police traced obscenities to his phone line and
arrested him on suspicion of Misconduct in Public Office.

The school’s letter does not make clear whether or not the petition was enclosed but it certainly
referred to it and the footpath problem which had been reported for “over 20
years”. Councillor Massey’s assertion that the school is unaware of any problem
is obviously a nonsense manufactured for the benefit of the webcast audience.

What has Bexley council achieved in the 40 months since the school sent Craske
that letter? Absolutely nothing bar the incidental improved sight line to the
school crossing patrol. Chris Attard is understandably angry, not helped by the
fact that councillor McGannon’s (UKIP, Colyers) request for a follow up question
was ignored. Councillor Massey clearly felt he had won the argument because as
he sat down his visage was overwhelmed by a broad grin. Mr. Attard asked Massey
what he found so amusing but got no answer.

In case you haven’t noticed; Public questioning in Bexley is nothing like fair. The
questioner submits a short question in advance which the council may reject on a
whim. The cabinet member is then allowed to speak uninterrupted for up to 15 minutes,
spinning whatever line he likes,
exactly that has happened. At the end the
questioner is allowed to make one further comment. They call it democracy.

Following the only permitted question from a member of the public there were 50 questions
from councillors to get through though only five of them were lucky.

Councillor Amaning (Labour, Lesnes Abbey) referred to the £1 million cut from the highways maintenance
budget and asked how it might affect potholes. Councillor Massey said he
expected to be able to repair 6,000 potholes and further details are available
on the council’s website. Councillor Amaning also said the number of potholes was
rising steeply, how was Massey going to tackle the spiralling problem. He blamed
the deteriorating situation on three bad winters rather than
the number four picked at random my
Mike Frizoni but through a system of inspections he was “keeping our road
network safe”. Councillor Waters (Conservative, Danson Park) was allowed to ask a follow up question.

Councillor
Begho (Labour, Thamesmead East) asked how the £800,000 cut would affect the council’s remaining
libraries. Cabinet member Sawyer said he was planning a meeting to discuss
handing over more libraries to community groups, implying that that is how the
money would be saved. Councillor Alan Downing (Conservative, St. Mary’s) was allowed a follow up question.

Councillor Seymour (Conservative, Northumberland Heath) asked how a Thames bridge at Belvedere would
benefit Bexley residents when, by implication, one at Gallions Reach wouldn’t. Councillor Massey
repeated the new Tory buzz phrase
“we need the right links in the right places”. He was “very pleased to see
the Belvedere option on the table bringing fantastic opportunities for that
area”. Councillor Seán Newman (Labour, Belvedere) was allowed a follow up question which elicited,
“there are enormous growth opportunities for the borough as a whole”.

Why didn’t Bexley council suggest a Belvedere bridge long ago if it is such an obviously great idea?

Councillor Camsey (Conservative, Brampton) asked if there were enough school places for September 2014.
Cabinet member John Fuller took the opportunity to repeat his usual good figures
on school place choices before saying he was happy that there were no problems
in 2014. Councillor Amaning was allowed to ask a follow up question from which
we discovered that demand should continue to be within capacity until 2017
beyond which no reliable figures are available.

Councillor Lynn Smith (UKIP, Blackfen & Lamorbey) asked if the
council leader was going to start paying senior
salaries in line with the recommendations of the Secretary of State. The council
leader said that future appointees will be paid less than those currently in
post and her plans included total savings of around £1 million.

The leader really is for turning. It’s not all that long ago she said that huge
salaries represented “value for money” and absolutely refused to countenance any
change of direction.